required flag on BDU's?

[capchiro]

Can someone explain to me or show me in the regulations how cadets can be required to wear the flag on their BDU's for encampment this summer if National has moved the required date of wear until the summer of 2007?  I am not aware of any legal way for this to be required.  I believe that CAP Reg's state that no subordinate unit may require more or something other than National requires.  Also, can the encampment commander require that all wing patches be removed from BDU's, if National states that wing patch wear is optional on BDU's and the squadron commander and wing commander are allowing the continued wear of wing patches?  As usual, thanks in advance.   

[MIKE]

1-5. ... A commander may require cadets to wear other optional uniform items only if the purchase is voluntary or if the uniform is supplied without expense to the cadet. ...

[Pace]

1-5. ... A commander may require cadets to wear other optional uniform items only if the purchase is voluntary or if the uniform is supplied without expense to the cadet. ...

(Emphasis mine)

[Eclipse]

We've beaten this up on other threads and forums, but here is my OPINION regarding this.  It should be noted that I am a Unit and Encampment Commander in ILWG.

[opinion]
The flag patch is not required until 01 June 2007, therefore, unless the encampment itself provides the flag, and sews it on, they cannot require you to wear it for events which occur before Midnight, 2 June 2007.

As to the Wing patch, this is now an OPTIONAL item, and without a supplemental policy letter, signed by the respective Wing, Group, or Unit Commander, wear cannot be dictated in either way. 

I would further hold, that while a respective Wing may require the patch stay on, they do not have authority over members who are on temporary duty (TDY) from another state, whether that duty is an ES mission (i.e. Katrina), or an encampment, etc.  This would be no more applicable than a state which does not wear it requiring you remove it.
[/opinion]

The problem, with this kind of thing, is that until someone with STANDING challenges the directive, and the challenge is UPHELD, the directive stands.

My suggestion would be to send a specific question to the Knowledgebase about this, and back it up with a phone call.  Make sure you get the details correct.

I would further suggest you enlist the assistance of a MOTIVATED senior Unit CC or higher to start making inquires.  Unless you get help from someone with intestinal fortitude, who is willing to draw a line, he/she will likely get pushed over after a call or two.

One of the keys, again, is involving people with STANDING.  When people not affected start complaining its usually met with "…Why do you care?"

Also, be prepared to have to comply, especially if the event is happening soon.  I'm not saying
that you should give up the challenge, but things don't always happen in CAP as fast as we'd like.

[BlackKnight]

...

[shorning]

Since the GAWG commander has made no such ruling regarding removal of our wing patches from BDUs the wing patches stay on. 

No need.  NHQ already did it for him.  It's "optional", not "optional if your wing commander says so".  See the problem is that wing commanders assume they have authority that they don't have.

[alamrcn]

I believe that CAP Reg's state that no subordinate unit may require more or something other than National requires.

National has not made a REQUIREMENT at all regarding wing patches staying on/off BDUs - only placement if one is worn (which CAWG doesn't follow, heh). They have left it as as OPTION for the next level of authority - starting with Region, then Wing (encampment falls here), then group, squadron, etc. The individual is the LAST level of authority to decide upon the OPTION of whether to wear the wing patch on their BDUs or not.

The wear of the wing patch only remains the individual's option until a superior level makes a decision for them. When a superior level in the chain-of-command makes a decision for a subordinate, then that is a REQUIRMENT - and therefor is no longer an option for subordinate levels... down to the individual.

National has given its subordinates the OPTION of wearing or not wearing the US Flag patch for limited time. A subordinate level may now step up and make that option a definite requirement. However, once National's wear option becomes a REQUIREMENT (Summer 2007 or whatever), subordinates of all levels no longer have a say in the matter.

To beat the horse further, a hypothetical situation...
National has given the OPTION of wearing a blue tie with the short-sleeve blues shirt. Your unit is marching in a parade, and they may REQUIRE you to wear short-sleeve shirt with tie while participating. A superior has made a decision (within regulation guidelines) where National has not, and the subordinates must follow that directive.

As to what is provided by CAP or purchased by the individual beyond the "basic cadet uniform" - well, that is another topic. For this situation, I'd say make sure the encampment have patches and sewing kits available for free. At encampment, it's all about standards anyway - everyone is encouraged to meet the same, minimal standards - whatever they are. This seems like a simple enough one, and ya gotta put the flag on eventually!

- Ace

[BlackKnight]

...

[ZigZag911]

I believe that CAP Reg's state that no subordinate unit may require more or something other than National requires.

National has not made a REQUIREMENT at all regarding wing patches staying on/off BDUs - only placement if one is worn (which CAWG doesn't follow, heh). They have left it as as OPTION for the next level of authority - starting with Region, then Wing (encampment falls here), then group, squadron, etc. The individual is the LAST level of authority to decide upon the OPTION of whether to wear the wing patch on their BDUs or not.
- Ace

Encampment is NOT a separate level of authority, but rather an operational arm of the Wing HQ carrying out a particular function....Encampments should set a positive example for their personnel by adhering strictly to their Wing's standing policy on uniform options.

[mikeylikey]

So if NHQ says wear special activity patches on the breast pocket, can a Wing King say, don't do that, wear it in place of the wing patch?  Take for example, PAWG, the CO said wear the Hawk MTN patch in place of the wing patches, and for those people that don't attend Hawk, you must wear the wing patch.  Is this legal?  I thought when NHQ says wear a particular patch in a particular place, you pretty much had to follow the guidance. 
  What is wrong with the thinking in PA Wing???

[Matt]

So if NHQ says wear special activity patches on the breast pocket, can a Wing King say, don't do that, wear it in place of the wing patch?  Take for example, PAWG, the CO said wear the Hawk MTN patch in place of the wing patches, and for those people that don't attend Hawk, you must wear the wing patch.  Is this legal?  I thought when NHQ says wear a particular patch in a particular place, you pretty much had to follow the guidance. 
  What is wrong with the thinking in PA Wing???

Aside from arrogance...

They are out of regs since National has indeed stated where they go.  They can say: no you can't wear those; but they can't redesignate a location; that's bad -- because it's not good.

[ZigZag911]

So if NHQ says wear special activity patches on the breast pocket, can a Wing King say, don't do that, wear it in place of the wing patch?  Take for example, PAWG, the CO said wear the Hawk MTN patch in place of the wing patches, and for those people that don't attend Hawk, you must wear the wing patch.  Is this legal?  I thought when NHQ says wear a particular patch in a particular place, you pretty much had to follow the guidance. 
  What is wrong with the thinking in PA Wing???

Part of the overall problem here is the phrase that has become customary for identifying Wing Commanders on this board.....while it rhymes nicely and is in fact alliterative, unfortunately it only serves to reinforce the notion (held dear first and foremost by NB/NEC members) that these corporate officers are accountable to no one.

Whatever happened to concepts such as "fiduciary responsibility" and "service before self"

[ZigZag911]

ALso, the little smiley face at the end of my last message was a typo, I never use them.

[MIKE]

FYI: You can go back and edit your posts... You can also turn off smileys.

[shorning]

ALso, the little smiley face at the end of my last message was a typo, I never use them.

That's what happens when you use too many question marks in a row:  = "? ? ?"

If you're asking a question, one will suffice.  More doesn't make it any more of a question.

[fyrfitrmedic]

So if NHQ says wear special activity patches on the breast pocket, can a Wing King say, don't do that, wear it in place of the wing patch?  Take for example, PAWG, the CO said wear the Hawk MTN patch in place of the wing patches, and for those people that don't attend Hawk, you must wear the wing patch.  Is this legal?  I thought when NHQ says wear a particular patch in a particular place, you pretty much had to follow the guidance. 
  What is wrong with the thinking in PA Wing???

Aside from arrogance...

They are out of regs since National has indeed stated where they go.  They can say: no you can't wear those; but they can't redesignate a location; that's bad -- because it's not good.

I think I'm gonna formulate my own version of Godwin's Law, only replacing 'hitler' with 'Pennsylvania Wing'.

I'm no jingoist, and I can provide my own list of things that need improvement/replacement/modification in my home wing, etc... - that's for bloody certain.

It just looks like some of the PAWG-bashing is a bit knee-jerk and comes from those who perhaps possess less than the information one would expect one to possess to fit in the category of 'informed'.

[shorning]

It just looks like some of the PAWG-bashing is a bit knee-jerk and comes from those who perhaps possess less than the information one would expect one to possess to fit in the category of 'informed'.

And yet 95% of the time, no one bothers to correct those misconceptions.  I'd hasten a guess that most PA Wingers like the idea that they are "different".

[pixelwonk]

If you're asking a question, one will suffice.  More doesn't make it any more of a question.

It doesn't?? ?? ??

[shorning]

If you're asking a question, one will suffice.  More doesn't make it any more of a question.

It doesn't?? ?? ??

[fyrfitrmedic]

It just looks like some of the PAWG-bashing is a bit knee-jerk and comes from those who perhaps possess less than the information one would expect one to possess to fit in the category of 'informed'.

And yet 95% of the time, no one bothers to correct those misconceptions.  I'd hasten a guess that most PA Wingers like the idea that they are "different".

You'd probably be wrong, and you'd definitely be guilty of the same thing as a number of folks here and elsewhere.

I won't speak for others, but it could be that some of us are tired of repeating ourselves in efforts to correct statements made ad nauseaum by the ignorant or the malicious. It could also be that some of us may well be busy trying to get the 'job' done and done right. I'm lucky to be able to participate at the unit level of late thanks to work and other demands on my time.

Based on some of the comments I've read here and in other forums, one could almost conclude that nobody in any other wing ever did anything other than exemplary and members of every other wing excrete vanilla ice cream... 

[mikeylikey]

It just looks like some of the PAWG-bashing is a bit knee-jerk and comes from those who perhaps possess less than the information one would expect one to possess to fit in the category of 'informed'.

And yet 95% of the time, no one bothers to correct those misconceptions.  I'd hasten a guess that most PA Wingers like the idea that they are "different".

You'd probably be wrong, and you'd definitely be guilty of the same thing as a number of folks here and elsewhere.

I won't speak for others, but it could be that some of us are tired of repeating ourselves in efforts to correct statements made ad nauseaum by the ignorant or the malicious. It could also be that some of us may well be busy trying to get the 'job' done and done right. I'm lucky to be able to participate at the unit level of late thanks to work and other demands on my time.

Based on some of the comments I've read here and in other forums, one could almost conclude that nobody in any other wing ever did anything other than exemplary and members of every other wing excrete vanilla ice cream... 

Yes, but as history shows, when NHQ says "PA Wing take off those ranger class tabs", PA Wing does not listen.  OR, PAWG do this, they tend not to follow along as quickly as they should.  I understand some things may not be popular, and there may be resistance to change, but when it repeatedly happens, thats when the negative titles are applied.  Usually when CAP members throughout the county think of Pennsylvania, only one thing comes to mind and that is Hawk MTN.  With that, you then get either the negative feelings toward the wing or the positive feelings based on the individual perception of Hawk.  It is a shame that it happens that way

[fyrfitrmedic]

It just looks like some of the PAWG-bashing is a bit knee-jerk and comes from those who perhaps possess less than the information one would expect one to possess to fit in the category of 'informed'.

And yet 95% of the time, no one bothers to correct those misconceptions.  I'd hasten a guess that most PA Wingers like the idea that they are "different".

You'd probably be wrong, and you'd definitely be guilty of the same thing as a number of folks here and elsewhere.

I won't speak for others, but it could be that some of us are tired of repeating ourselves in efforts to correct statements made ad nauseaum by the ignorant or the malicious. It could also be that some of us may well be busy trying to get the 'job' done and done right. I'm lucky to be able to participate at the unit level of late thanks to work and other demands on my time.

Based on some of the comments I've read here and in other forums, one could almost conclude that nobody in any other wing ever did anything other than exemplary and members of every other wing excrete vanilla ice cream... 

Yes, but as history shows, when NHQ says "PA Wing take off those ranger class tabs", PA Wing does not listen.  OR, PAWG do this, they tend not to follow along as quickly as they should.  I understand some things may not be popular, and there may be resistance to change, but when it repeatedly happens, thats when the negative titles are applied.  Usually when CAP members throughout the county think of Pennsylvania, only one thing comes to mind and that is Hawk MTN.  With that, you then get either the negative feelings toward the wing or the positive feelings based on the individual perception of Hawk.  It is a shame that it happens that way

I personally witnessed some of what you describe in re: the ranger tabs - no argument there.

On the other hand, if I had a nickel for every time someone clue-deprived spread rumors or stories or just plain trashtalk about Hawk Mountain [or almost anything else within PAWG] without any first-hand knowledge or experience to back up their nonsense, I'd have already bought my dream boat and either retired to the Eastern Shore or decided to make my own run at playing Slocum or Moitessier for a change of pace and a real non-CAP or non-emergency-services vacation for the first time in a long, long time. [Gee, can ya tell I'm a little crispy around the edges?  ]

[SarDragon]

I've got two slightly related comments here.

Firstly, regarding the CAWG wing patch placement, I challenge you to sew one onto a BDU shirt in the CAPM 39-1 prescribed placement without breaking at least one sewing machine needle. The "wings" end up being on the shoulder seams. Sewing through five layers of cloth, on a seam, is no easy feat. The placement was moved down to facilitate sewing them on and having them look "right" on the clothing.

Secondly, PAWG isn't the only wing to catch grief from the forums. CAWG gets their share, too, as seen above.

[MIKE]

Secondly, PAWG isn't the only wing to catch grief from the forums. CAWG gets their share, too, as seen above.

"California Air Patrol"    Just mess'n with ya major.

I think all wings have issues... When there is photographic evidence for things like uniforms... Or something in print like a supplement that's "a little off the mark," then you should expect to draw fire.

[flyguy06]

Ok, I have been out of CAP for a year. The wing patch is "optional"? when did that come down? So, what are you supposed to wear on your BDU's now?

[MIKE]

Ok, I have been out of CAP for a year. The wing patch is "optional"? when did that come down? So, what are you supposed to wear on your BDU's now?

b. Removal of Wing/Region/National Patch. The Wing/Region/National patch is
no longer worn on the AF-style light blue shirt/blouse or any AF-style blue outer garment
(light weight jacket, pullover sweater, all weather coat, etc.) Wing/Region/National patches
are now optional on BDUs, flight suits, CAP field and utility uniforms. These patches must
be removed from blue AF-style garments by 1 August 2006.

g. Optional patches previously worn on the right shoulder of the BDUs, field
and utility uniforms. Those patches that were removed to allow wear of the reverse
American flag on the right shoulder are now authorized to be worn centered on the lower
portion of the left pocket or corresponding position on the utility uniform. The mandatory
wear date of the reverse American flag was extended to 1 April 2007.

[flyguy06]

I was aware about taking them off of the Blue uniforms. i am talking about the BDUs. I see the regs say Optional, but I think they are rrefering to Squadron patcehes, not the officail Wing Patach. Squadron patches have always been optional. but I think you HAVE to wear a Wing patch on your BDU's.
Patches like Proficiency pilot have always been optional as well.

[MIKE]

I was aware about taking them off of the Blue uniforms. i am talking about the BDUs. I see the regs say Optional, but I think they are rrefering to Squadron patcehes, not the officail Wing Patach. Squadron patches have always been optional. but I think you HAVE to wear a Wing patch on your BDU's.

No, it is referring to the Wing/Region/National patch as worn on the left shoulder.  The patches you are thinking of are referred to as "Organizational (Unit) Patch" per CAPM 39-1 Table 6-4. Item 10.